> On 3. Aug 2018, at 17:44, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com
> <mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt
> <stef...@berkeley.edu <mailto:stef...@berkeley.edu>> wrote:
> > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:robert.k...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:robert.k...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <looks back> Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I
> >>> made the argument clear, at least.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, wait. I got it:
> >>
> >> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for
> >> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want
> >> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2)
> >> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come.
> >
> >
> > That's a very useful summary; thank you.
> >
> > I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation
> > from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including
> > someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction
> > with the rest of the guidelines.
> >
> > Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for
> > NumPy too?
>
> If someone with good wordsmithing skills could draft 1-2 sentences and send a
> PR to the SciPy repo, so we have something concrete to discuss/approve, that
> would be great. If not, I can take a stab at it early next week.
>
>
> I must say, I disagree. I think we're already treading close to the
> edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer
> still with virtually any addition on this line. I'm in favor of
> keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis
>
> There's a much more straightforward basis one can think of. There are many
> countries in the world that have dictatorships or one-party rule. This
> includes countries that we get regular contributions from. Expressing support
> for, e.g., democratic elections, can land you in all sorts of trouble there.
>
> For a US conference it may be okay to take a purely US perspective, and even
> then the inclusion/removal of "political beliefs" can be argued (as evidenced
> by this thread). For a project with a global reach like NumPy it's really not
> very good to take into account only US/Western voices.
>
> it's really not
> too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current
> atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as
> progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection.
> If you will not allow me "no change"
>
> I think "not allow" is too strong. Your opinion matters as well, so I'm happy
> to have/facilitate a higher bandwidth discussion on this if you want (after
> Monday).
>
> and you offered me a) paragraph
> by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something
> comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your
> other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons,
> I'd take b).
>
> Imho Robert made a very compelling argument here, so I don't completely
> understand the choice.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org <mailto:NumPy-Discussion@python.org>
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion>
I’ve created a PR, and I’ve kept the language “not too stern”.
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109
<https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/9109>
Hameer Abbasi
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
